ArticleMedical physics2021
Block-matching-based registration to evaluate ultrasound visibility of percutaneous needles in liver-mimicking phantoms.
Article in Medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomized trial of biopsy needle sandblasting in coaxial core-needle liver biopsy: no significant improvement in ultrasound visibility, pain, or tissue yield.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Trial
- Comparison of Franseen and novel tricore needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy in a porcine liver model.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Block-matching-based registration to evaluate ultrasound visibility of percutaneous needles in liver-mimicking phantoms.Medical physics · 2021Article
- System for assistance in ultrasound-guided percutaneous hepatic interventions using augmented reality: First steps.Healthcare technology lettersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo present a novel methodical approach to compare visibility of percutaneous needles in ultrasound images.
methodsA motor-driven rotation platform was used to gradually change the needle angle while capturing image data. Data analysis was automated using block-matching-based registration, with a tracking and refinement step. Every 25 frames, a Hough transform was used to improve needle alignments after large rotations. The method was demonstrated by comparing three commercial needles (14G radiofrequency ablation, RFA; 18G Trocar; 22G Chiba) and six prototype needles with different sizes, materials, and surface conditions (polished, sand-blasted, and kerfed), within polyvinyl alcohol phantom tissue and ex vivo bovine liver models. For each needle and angle, a contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) was determined to quantify visibility. CNR values are presented as a function of needle type and insertion angle. In addition, the normalized area under the (CNR-angle) curve was used as a summary metric to compare needles.
resultsIn phantom tissue, the first kerfed needle design had the largest normalized area of visibility and the polished 1 mm diameter stainless steel needle the smallest (0.704 ± 0.199 vs. 0.154 ± 0.027, p < 0.01). In the ex vivo model, the second kerfed needle design had the largest normalized area of visibility, and the sand-blasted stainless steel needle the smallest (0.470 ± 0.190 vs. 0.127 ± 0.047, p < 0.001). As expected, the analysis showed needle visibility peaks at orthogonal insertion angles. For acute or obtuse angles, needle visibility was similar or reduced. Overall, the variability in needle visibility was considerably higher in livers.
conclusionThe best overall visibility was found with kerfed needles and the commercial RFA needle. The presented methodical approach to quantify ultrasound visibility allows comparisons of (echogenic) needles, as well as other technological innovations aiming to improve ultrasound visibility of percutaneous needles, such as coatings, material treatments, and beam steering approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.